A Case of Wrongful Conviction - Mark Scheme

A01 (max 5 marks)
Anxiety and misleading information both stated as possible factors in affecting EWT in this case.
Inconsistency in EWT identified – brown hair or blond hair in first interviews.
Interviewing in a group stated as less good than interviewing individually.
EW’s may mislead each other by being interviewed in a group.
Third interview conducted three weeks after first interview / final line-up was several months after the crime SO recall less likely to be accurate after this time lag compared to immediately after the event.
Mixed EW certainty over ID from the photo - two bystanders were sure of the perpetrator’s ID from the photo, but the main victim (cashier) and other bystander were not.
Cognitive interviews (CI) would be better than standard interviews for better recall detail and accuracy.
Link to research showing CI are better.

A02 (max 5 marks)
Fewer inconsistencies in second interview may have been due to first interview being a group interview – EW s may have been misled or guided by others’ statements.
Appropriately made research link e.g. Loftus (1975) / Loftus (1978) or Loftus and Palmer (1974), with brief outline of the research study.
Research e.g. Christianson and Hubinette (1993) or Yuille and Cutshall (1986) shows main victim of / those closest to centre of violent crimes usually most accurate with recall of events.
Since the cashier was initially unsure of James Taylor (from photo) being the perpetrator of the crime this casts doubt on it being him.
Differential experience hypothesis related to – suggests that best able to recall people of similar age and ethnicity, so the cashier might be expected to have best recall as she is of similar age to James Taylor.
James Taylor photo could also have acted as misleading information if he was not the perpetrator.
Loftus (1978) found